Newey finds rules loophole to hide FIA nose camera

Red Bull may have endured a disastrous winter, but their ace designer Adrian Newey’s attention to detail is as sharp as ever as the 2014 season gets underway.

Keen-eyed observers noticed throughout the winter and again in Melbourne on Friday that the new RB10 did not have the FIA camera mountings installed as per normal.

Because it was only testing, the nose configuration was not ‘illegal’ at Jerez or in Bahrain, but the camera mountings are mandatory at the actual grands prix.

So how is Red Bull getting away with it in Melbourne?

A much closer look at the nose of the Newey-penned 2014 car at Albert Park reveals that a hole for the television camera lens has been cut between the ‘Casio’ and ‘Pirelli’ logos in the nose.

The disguised FIA camera in the Red Bull can be seen at Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport:

“The trick by aerodynamics guru Newey, who reads the rules carefully, means that no inconvenient parts are in the wind,” said correspondent Michael Schmidt.

The rules say that the mountings must not be located inside the carbon structure, but Newey has found a loophole by putting the camera inside the ‘vanity panel’, a non-structural covering introduced last year to hide the unseemly nose steps.

Newey’s solution also means that Formula 1 Management can no longer use the Red Bull camera for a rearward-facing television view, whose images last year led to suggestions the title-winning 2013 car had an illegally bending floor. (GMM)

Not surprising. Newey is a master of finding loopholes. The spirit of the rule is far different from the wording.

karlich

Michael Schmidt must be reading F1 Technical forums very carefully as that’s been discussed there first 😀 Even so, nice one – hope FIA can live with that and not mess up Newey’s designs and ideas yet again just because they can’t pen a proper regulation (according to the strict wording of the regs, a “camera or camera mount” must be in these positions, so actually nothing there that says an actual image transmitting camera must be in place. Guess leaving out an actual camera would’ve been too cheeky though

KevinW

So the spirit of the rule is to impart aerodynamic drag by imposing external appendages, with no dimensional restrictions on the cars? Seriously?

=El Presidente=

it is a clever solution.

It is just a shame that the team with the best linguistic professors , is the team gaining the advantage.

The last decade for sure, F1 is only about finding the ‘loophole’ and has very little to do with racing.

(all above doesnt stop me from watching. -for all of you who are thinking that right now-)

Amos James

The spirit of the rule is to allow fore and aft views of the car from an aero neutral mounting. Mercedes made theirs aero positive (clever).

Redbull made theirs differently and is no longer capable of providing aft views. A great way to avoid tricky questions about floors heating up and flexing…..

KevinW, all teams wish they thought of this stuff. Redbull fans laud it for being clever. Non Red Bull-fans decry it.

KevinW

Where does that come from? Nothing anywhere in the regs suggests this in any way. In fact the camera positions are all assumed to be fixed, with zero requirement for a wider view or motion at all. It’s a clever idea that can be copied easily, so will be soon enough unless the F1 A decide to add more fidelity to the regs. Everyone harping on “Spirit of the rules” need to get over it. Teams are not in the business of anticipating intent, they are in the business of literal interpretation, period. In spirit, Ferrari are being allowed to ignore the Reg requiring a turbo cover, while McLaren violates the spirit of the rules regarding integrating aero features into rear control arms. The lopsided outrage in this sport against one team is comical. You don’t have to be a Ref Bull fan to see it, or tire of it.

Amos James

Poor KevinW, as Charlie Whiting said “The spirit of the regulation….is to allow fore and aft views… with negligible aerodynamic impact ”

I never said that was the wording of the regs. Unlike Newey, you don’t read things carefully enough.

I don’t think redbull are cheating. I don’t think mercGP are cheating, either by having an aero positive camera. As I said in my first post, the spirit of the rule is far different from the wording.

KevinW

Hey I got an idea. Rather than being a condescending jerk, reading things into my comments, and providing quotes without revealing your source (since the quote is not included in the article being discussed here) why not refer us all to the reference and additional information you are basing your opinion on. Cheers.